Transportation Biking for Obesity

Living Car FreeDo you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

I misspoke. setting up training zones with my Garmin I discovered 12 mph on my bike was not much higher than walking the dog as far as heart rate. And while I did miscalculate the time a 12 mph cyclist would take it does seem as if it would take closer to 64 miles to burn just under 2000 calories at 12 mph. 31x64 = 1984. That is a bit more than 5.33 hours and the heart rate would still be under 120 or zone 1. For the people I ride with zone one is resting recovery.

That same zone is what is used for cool down and recovery in spin class. Zone 1 is not going to turn an obese person into a fit person with a two mile ride to work and a two mile ride home. At that pace you aren’t putting out any more effort than cruising down a MUP dodging strollers. So you will never get the calories out that you took in at that rate.

I doubt that anyone ever claimed that low-moderate intensity exercise would lead to substantial increase in athletic performance. But looking at the calorie-in vs. calorie-out picture that frequently leads to obesity it's important to note that most people have the two numbers almost in balance. So there's no need for huge changes to reverse a gradual weight gain over the years into an equally gradual weight loss. Someone who consumes an average of an extra 100 kcals per day will gain about 10 lbs./yr. or 100 lbs./decade which is certainly going to create obesity over time. If that individual keeps the same diet but cuts back a bit in their driving and substitutes some moderate bike rides and/or walks they can turn that average 100 kcal surplus into a 100 kcal deficit. And that only needs a ride of a little over 6 miles each day (or the equivalent effort in walking/etc.).

Yes, moderate-rate cycling isn't much more strenuous than walking, but medical articles frequently spout the virtues of walking for its health benefits. There have been lots of studies indicating that communities that are more 'walkable' have lower obesity rates than communities with equivalent demographics but where businesses and other destinations are more distant and therefore require motor vehicle transportation. Here's one example looking at obesity rates vs. housing density:https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/10...search/542433/

I doubt that anyone ever claimed that low-moderate intensity exercise would lead to substantial increase in athletic performance. But looking at the calorie-in vs. calorie-out picture that frequently leads to obesity it's important to note that most people have the two numbers almost in balance. So there's no need for huge changes to reverse a gradual weight gain over the years into an equally gradual weight loss. Someone who consumes an average of an extra 100 kcals per day will gain about 10 lbs./yr. or 100 lbs./decade which is certainly going to create obesity over time. If that individual keeps the same diet but cuts back a bit in their driving and substitutes some moderate bike rides and/or walks they can turn that average 100 kcal surplus into a 100 kcal deficit. And that only needs a ride of a little over 6 miles each day (or the equivalent effort in walking/etc.).

Yes, moderate-rate cycling isn't much more strenuous than walking, but medical articles frequently spout the virtues of walking for its health benefits. There have been lots of studies indicating that communities that are more 'walkable' have lower obesity rates than communities with equivalent demographics but where businesses and other destinations are more distant and therefore require motor vehicle transportation. Here's one example looking at obesity rates vs. housing density:

And yet you have transportation riders even in this forum that admit they are not in shape? And I noticed they mentioned that people living in even lower dense areas were less likely to be obese. Offset they said by a more active lifestyle. But using your cut back example they could just as easily cut back 100 calories. I didn't say waking or even casual cycling were unhealthy. I said they aren't going to make an obese person a slim person at the rate of burn you get from such minor output.

When I lived in the city and we set up exercise days they were not 20 or 30 minuets twice a day. It was two hours of racquet ball. two hours of basket ball. an hour or two at the gym or even a home gym system. (not all on the same day.) If it was as easy as riding a bike two miles at a leisurely 12 mph on the flat no one would be out of shape. I walk 2 to five miles every day 7 days a week at about 3 mph and "still" have to watch my intake. That takes me just over an hour. When I cycle 45 miles 4 days a week and toss in a 5000 foot climb once a month a piece of blueberry pie doesn't magically pop onto my bottom. But take away the walking an hour and or the cycling and if I look at a piece of New York cheese cake I put on a pound. I don't cycle as much in the summer heat as I used to because of a bout with heat exhaustion.

You can't just look at calories burned doing the activity. The exercise raises your metabolism in a way that carries thru the rest of the day to a significant degree.

Only short very intense exercise raises metabolism and keeps your metabolism elevated for an extended period of time...Walking to a bus stop is not enough or cycling 2 miles to work, then sitting at a desk for 8 hours a day and cycling 2 miles back home in not enough...To raise metabolism you need high intensity exercise, you need to get your heart rate up to 80%-90% of it's max.

And yet you have transportation riders even in this forum that admit they are not in shape? And I noticed they mentioned that people living in even lower dense areas were less likely to be obese. Offset they said by a more active lifestyle. But using your cut back example they could just as easily cut back 100 calories. I didn't say waking or even casual cycling were unhealthy. I said they aren't going to make an obese person a slim person at the rate of burn you get from such minor output.

Yes, I agree that a minor decrease in daily intake could also reverse a gradual weight gain. My point is that almost all people are very close to a proper balance in terms of intake vs. output. The problem is that being only about 100 kcals/day off will result in the gain of 100 lbs./decade (or that much loss if the intake is less). Since the problem is caused by such a small imbalance (only a few percent) only rather small changes are needed to reverse it. Unless you're looking for an instant fix, in which case liposuction or bariatric surgery should be looked at. Seems better to recognize the trend early (after a weight gain of maybe 10 lbs. from optimum) and make small changes as needed.

Quote:

When I lived in the city and we set up exercise days they were not 20 or 30 minuets twice a day. It was two hours of racquet ball. two hours of basket ball. an hour or two at the gym or even a home gym system. (not all on the same day.) If it was as easy as riding a bike two miles at a leisurely 12 mph on the flat no one would be out of shape.

My impression is that a pretty large percentage of the population gets almost no extended physical activity on a daily basis and it's this group that would benefit by a bike ride of 5 - 10 miles or a walk of a few miles at least a few times a week. There's been a big increase in the obesity incidence in the last few decades and I suspect that it's due to a combination of factors. Fast food has certainly become more readily available and the providers keep searching for ways to make it more appealing to gain customers, but coincidentally to encourage them to eat more. But another significant factor is that physical activity has become less and less necessary as a regular part of our daily lives. School kids used to routinely walk or bike to school, jobs tended to involve more physical motion, even watching TV used to at least require getting off the couch to change channels, etc. - we keep inventing devices with the explicit aim to reduce the need for physical motion (Roomba, Alexa, etc.).

None of these changes in our lifestyles has a large effect on either our food intake or physical output, but even a small change can make a huge difference over time. Eat an extra 100 kcal/day and reduce your physical activities by another 100 kcal/day and in 5 years you'll weigh an extra 100 lbs.

Yes, I agree that a minor decrease in daily intake could also reverse a gradual weight gain. My point is that almost all people are very close to a proper balance in terms of intake vs. output. The problem is that being only about 100 kcals/day off will result in the gain of 100 lbs./decade (or that much loss if the intake is less). Since the problem is caused by such a small imbalance (only a few percent) only rather small changes are needed to reverse it. Unless you're looking for an instant fix, in which case liposuction or bariatric surgery should be looked at. Seems better to recognize the trend early (after a weight gain of maybe 10 lbs. from optimum) and make small changes as needed.

My impression is that a pretty large percentage of the population gets almost no extended physical activity on a daily basis and it's this group that would benefit by a bike ride of 5 - 10 miles or a walk of a few miles at least a few times a week. There's been a big increase in the obesity incidence in the last few decades and I suspect that it's due to a combination of factors. Fast food has certainly become more readily available and the providers keep searching for ways to make it more appealing to gain customers, but coincidentally to encourage them to eat more. But another significant factor is that physical activity has become less and less necessary as a regular part of our daily lives. School kids used to routinely walk or bike to school, jobs tended to involve more physical motion, even watching TV used to at least require getting off the couch to change channels, etc. - we keep inventing devices with the explicit aim to reduce the need for physical motion (Roomba, Alexa, etc.).

None of these changes in our lifestyles has a large effect on either our food intake or physical output, but even a small change can make a huge difference over time. Eat an extra 100 kcal/day and reduce your physical activities by another 100 kcal/day and in 5 years you'll weigh an extra 100 lbs.

Which points out that there are downsides to higher densities. I agree, nor did I ever intend to imply otherwise.

Then we may have reached a general consensus. With the exception perhaps of what the average intake versus what they expend. I believe if the balance were that close weight wouldn’t be much of a problem. If however you are correct your reasoning works.

i did have an employee that lost weight while still driving by giving up a Starbucks Frappuccino on the way to work and no beer during Monday night football.

There are many subtleties to consider with regards to the health benefits of LCF besides burning calories. First, think about the effect on your digestive system of just pedaling at 12mph for 20 minutes instead of sitting in a car. Small body movements, changes in posture, etc. change the geometry of your digestive system and keep things moving. Diet is also important, but even light movement is better than no movement. Then, you should realize that pressure to do a heavy workout is what deters many people from working out at all. They might not feel like changing into special clothes, let alone going to a gym or going out to do a 20 mile ride at 20mph. At least if you're biking to work and back at 12mph, you're doing something, and then you might also go out to do shopping, or go for a walk, etc.

Habits are easier to stick to and build on than rising to big challenges. If someone feels like a 20 mile 20mph fitness ride is a big challenge, they will avoid it until avoiding it becomes a habit. But if they get into a habit of biking everyday for commuting, shopping, etc. then going out for a bike ride is something they don't want to miss because it's part of their daily comfort routine. Then it's also easier to go for a more challenging ride when they feel up to it because they are used to biking, whereas someone who never cycles and always drives might have more trouble getting on a bike and feeling comfortable after not doing it for a long time.

Finally, I think you have to give adequate consideration to how diet and light, frequent exercise are part of a lifestyle that is overall lower stress and higher metabolism than being sedentary all the time and then trying to make up for it by pushing yourself at the gym or otherwise. Yes, you have to limit calories, but it is a different thing to be focused on other activities like biking/walking around doing errands, and not eating because you're busy and trying to sit and not eat or snack within the sedentary paradigm. People sit in the car and eat/snack, suck on straws, etc. as basically just a form of fidgeting because there is nothing else for their energy to do. When you are biking or walking, even though it's just light exercise, your energy is channeled into your activity so you have less nervous energy and so your nervous system isn't seeking to fidget and/or eat/snack constantly.

Another way to look at it is that there are all these moments of consumption set up for you, which include meals/snacks and media consumption. Automotive culture is about racing around to get to destinations faster, but then you are saving time to spend more time in the moments of consumption. What LCF does is reduce the time allotted to consumption and replace that time with time spent en route. This makes the moments of consumption more precious and valuable. E.g. if you are snacking on sweets all day and drinking soda/coffee/etc., you become desensitized to the sugar or caffeine or whatever and when you quit those things and drink water all the time, it clears your palette so when you finally have that one choice snack or cup of coffee or soda or whatever it is, the flavor and joy of consumption is optimized, not dulled by normalization. This is the same with media consumption because you're going to get more out of watching TV/movie/etc. if you don't consume as much and take time afterward on a walk or bike ride to reflect on what you watched/read/etc.

So LCF is healthy because it spaces out consumption instead of racing around in a motor-vehicle to maximize it. You feel better and get more out of your lifestyle because you are watering it down with more bike rides and walks in between moments of consumption. It is the same principle as eating more fiber to space out the moments of carb/fat intensive eating, and your digestive system is lighter and flows better because you haven't packed it tightly with calorie dense food you no longer even enjoy because your senses have been dulled by eating too much of it too frequently.

What sometimes causes me pause is how the OP can flip the topic of the thread to things not asked.

Does transportion cycling have a major effect on Obesity? There is no evidence that it does based on what has been described. A slow cruise of a mile or two will not make an obese person slim.

It seemed to me that was pretty much agreed on. If diet and more exercise was added then results could be expected. If I got the trend wrong I can accept correction.

So if the question was will slow casual cycling of just a few minutes twice a day turn a obese person into a trim person I say no.

It it would be the same with someone that rides the bus, takes Uber or a Taxi or even commutes by train. If the rest of their lifestyle is sans exercise and they eat more than they should they will be overweight. Looking st people waiting at a bus stop will confirm this to most people’s satisfaction.

The same thing applies to a cyclist that eats more than they burn off. Cruising to Red Robin to have a Burger and endless fries will not make you slim and trim.

There is an obesity problem in the US but there are also cyclists that admit they are over weight. There is no magic bullet and it is highly unlikely people are going to be more willing to take up cycling if they aren’t willing to give up wine and beer while watching TV. If they think giving up a morning Mc muffin is hard just wait till they hit their first hill on a cruiser.

Philosophical discussions on the joy of cycling can continue but casual slow cycling will not cure obesity. Weight loss will take more effort than seem to think it does. But the “just do this one thing”. Hardly ever works.

Philosophical discussions on the joy of cycling can continue but casual slow cycling will not cure obesity. Weight loss will take more effort than seem to think it does. But the “just do this one thing”. Hardly ever works.

I've explained in several posts how the overall lifestyle ethic of LCF can result in more physical activity and thus higher metabolism, but of course it's possible for people to negate the effects of anything good by doing more bad things. If you are feeling inferior for taking transit and this leads you to comfort eat and you don't get any exercise besides walking a few blocks to and from bus stops, then it's easy to stay obese, yes. But if you embrace the spirit of walking and biking in your daily life, and you feel good and a sense of accomplishment by doing so, you may be motivated to resist comfort eating and eat healthier. This in addition to doing light physical activity throughout the day should maintain a higher overall metabolic level for you, which will mean you burn more calories at rest as well, and it will put you in a better base state for choosing to do more strenuous exercise beyond what you do to accomplish everyday activities.

In short, LCF might not be as good as being a devoted athlete with a regular strenuous training schedule, but it is better than living a sedentary lifestyle, including driving, and not being motivated to work out because you are fatigued from spending so much time driving and working.

You also ignored everything I said about people snacking because they have nervous energy from sitting and that walking and biking around for transportation channels that energy into something productive so it's not turning into nervous energy, stress, and impulses to snack and comfort-eat. Basically you ignore everything I post when responding to my thread/posts because you just want to make a case against LCF and you just ignore/dismiss things that are valid if they don't suit your agenda. Your posts often read like closing arguments in a court case where the sedentary automotive-consumerism lifestyle is on trial and so you just ignore all the strong points against it in order to defend its supposed innocence.

I've explained in several posts how the overall lifestyle ethic of LCF can result in more physical (or may not)activity and thus higher metabolism, but of course it's possible for people to negate the effects of anything good by doing more bad things. If you are feeling inferior for taking transit(or have always been a snacker even as a child)and this leads you to comfort eat and you don't get any exercise besides walking a few blocks to and from bus stops, then it's easy to stay obese, yes.(even if you are LCF and ride a bike?) But if you embrace the spirit of walking and biking in your daily life, (or join a gym, basketball team, took up jogging or a cycling club LCF or not) and you feel good and a sense of accomplishment by doing so, you may be motivated to resist comfort eating and eat healthier. This in addition to doing light physical activity throughout the day should(or may) maintain a higher overall metabolic level for you, which will mean you burn more calories at rest as well, and it will put you in a better base state for choosing to do more strenuous exercise beyond what you do to accomplish everyday activities. (or maybe you aren"t into after work exercise even as a LCF Person?)

In short, LCF might not be as good as being a devoted athlete with a regular strenuous training schedule, but it is better than living a sedentary lifestyle,(sure we agree) including driving, (or taking the bus, uber, a taxi or train.)and not being motivated to work out because you are fatigued from spending so much time driving and working. (Or don't love working out)

You also ignored everything I said about people snacking because they have nervous energy from sitting and that walking and biking around for transportation channels that energy into something productive so it's not turning into nervous energy, stress, and impulses to snack and comfort-eat. (and yet you have cyclist that nervous eat?)Basically you ignore everything I post when responding to my thread/posts because you just want to make a case against LCF and you just ignore/dismiss things that are valid if they don't suit your agenda. Your posts often read like closing arguments in a court case where the sedentary automotive-consumerism lifestyle is on trial and so you just ignore all the strong points against it in order to defend its supposed innocence.

It looks like we are still talking to here goes, no I don't ignore all of your posts I just see it as saying, if you do everything right living LCF and do everything wrong not being car free then LCF is better! You post articles trying to say LCF is a cure for obesity only to later say weight loss wasn't the point. If it isn't the point why link the two? But that being said take a look at the underlined absolutes you tried to make and my highlighted additions. When you look at most healthy athletes competing in sports do you see a LCF person? Or one that simply lives a healthy lifestyle?

It looks like we are still talking to here goes, no I don't ignore all of your posts I just see it as saying, if you do everything right living LCF and do everything wrong not being car free then LCF is better! You post articles trying to say LCF is a cure for obesity only to later say weight loss wasn't the point. If it isn't the point why link the two? But that being said take a look at the underlined absolutes you tried to make and my highlighted additions. When you look at most healthy athletes competing in sports do you see a LCF person? Or one that simply lives a healthy lifestyle?

If you read my posts, you would see that it comes down to two different paradigms of physical activity and time management. In the automotive-consumer paradigm, you are spending extra sedentary time driving to get to a gym after driving to and from work, driving to run errands, etc. Driving is a sedentary chore that is fatiguing, so if you have enough energy to do all that driving in addition to going to work and then you're still up for a strenuous workout, great.

But if you really embrace the LCF paradigm and don't just walk back and forth to and from a bus stop to go to work and then come home and order delivery food, then you are automatically building a certain base level of physical activity into your daily routines and errands. Plus, since you're spending more time biking and walking, less time driving, and less time sitting with nervous energy that leads to snacking and comfort-eating, it's just easier to make better lifestyle choices. You say that you have to 'do everything right' living car free to make it a healthy lifestyle, but the whole point is that doing things right is naturally built into the LCF lifestyle when you integrate physical activity into your trips instead of spending that time sedentary in a car stressing yourself racing through traffic trying to make time to exercise.

If you read my posts, you would see that it comes down to two different paradigms of physical activity and time management. In the automotive-consumer paradigm, you are spending extra sedentary time driving to get to a gym after driving to and from work, driving to run errands, etc. Driving is a sedentary chore that is fatiguing, so if you have enough energy to do all that driving in addition to going to work and then you're still up for a strenuous workout, great.

But if you really embrace the LCF paradigm and don't just walk back and forth to and from a bus stop to go to work and then come home and order delivery food, then you are automatically building a certain base level of physical activity into your daily routines and errands. Plus, since you're spending more time biking and walking, less time driving, and less time sitting with nervous energy that leads to snacking and comfort-eating, it's just easier to make better lifestyle choices. You say that you have to 'do everything right' living car free to make it a healthy lifestyle, but the whole point is that doing things right is naturally built into the LCF lifestyle when you integrate physical activity into your trips instead of spending that time sedentary in a car stressing yourself racing through traffic trying to make time to exercise.

So there are no obese LCF Bus riders because they have a built in desire for physical activity? And that is why there are no obese LCF people? And because it is natural and easier? Are you going to take that to the bank? Are you willing to contend that LCF people are more physically fit than the rest of the population?

So there are no obese LCF Bus riders because they have a built in desire for physical activity?

Do you think about the logic of your arguments? I described a general thing about LCF and your response is that if it is possible for anyone to deviate from that general spirit, then it has no basis in reality. That just confounds the discussion. Obviously, as I mentioned in my posts, it is possible to defy the spirit of LCF and minimize physical activity while also avoiding driving a car. But that doesn't undermine the fact that if people indeed embrace the paradigm of integrating physical activity into all their daily transportation that they won't be healthier and happier for it. There is some willpower involved, but once you decide to bike to work, to do shopping,and for errands, you automatically have integrated a lot of light physical activity into your day while cutting out the sedentary time spent driving. How is that not win-win for the people who actually do it instead of just walking to the bus stop and then getting food delivered?

Quote:

And that is why there are no obese LCF people? And because it is natural and easier? Are you going to take that to the bank? Are you willing to contend that LCF people are more physically fit than the rest of the population?

What you are doing is making the category broader than the spirit of the category and then using that to prove that some people defy the healthy method of LCF. You can do that for any category. E.g. you could take the category of people who go to bars, which is generally in the spirit of drinking, and point out that some people go to bars and don't drink therefore being in the category, "people who go to bars" doesn't mean everyone in that category gets drunk or even drinks alcohol.

Why don't you drop the category games and just acknowledge that if people indeed accept the spirit of integrating physical activity into all their daily trips, they will end up healthier and happier than people who spend their time driving for all their trips and maybe fitting in a workout if they can muster the time and energy with everything else on their plate?

Do you think about the logic of your arguments? I described a general thing about LCF and your response is that if it is possible for anyone to deviate from that general spirit, then it has no basis in reality. That just confounds the discussion. Obviously, as I mentioned in my posts, it is possible to defy the spirit of LCF and minimize physical activity while also avoiding driving a car. But that doesn't undermine the fact that if people indeed embrace the paradigm of integrating physical activity into all their daily transportation that they won't be healthier and happier for it. There is some willpower involved, but once you decide to bike to work, to do shopping,and for errands, you automatically have integrated a lot of light physical activity into your day while cutting out the sedentary time spent driving. How is that not win-win for the people who actually do it instead of just walking to the bus stop and then getting food delivered?

What you are doing is making the category broader than the spirit of the category and then using that to prove that some people defy the healthy method of LCF. You can do that for any category. E.g. you could take the category of people who go to bars, which is generally in the spirit of drinking, and point out that some people go to bars and don't drink therefore being in the category, "people who go to bars" doesn't mean everyone in that category gets drunk or even drinks alcohol.

Why don't you drop the category games and just acknowledge that if people indeed accept the spirit of integrating physical activity into all their daily trips, they will end up healthier and happier than people who spend their time driving for all their trips and maybe fitting in a workout if they can muster the time and energy with everything else on their plate?

All I am doing is taking your points as you present them. If it is natural or easier to do if you have already become a car free person then why aren't people following their "natural" inclinations. If people drive because it is easier shouldn't they do other things that are easier? It is your train of thought. Transportation cycling can lower obesity rates? But then you add all of the things that both non car free and car free people can do as modifiers to that basic premise.

Lets go from general to specific. Not all or even most car free people seem to ride bikes. SO if you are saying that people have to embrace the spirit of LCF don't you have to include how the majority of LCF people commute and get around? You assume the Spirit of LCF is what you say it is but is it really?

New York CSA Means of Transportation: Work Location: 2013

AreaDrive Alone Car Pool Transit Bicycle Walk Other Work at Home

Manhattan 10.0% 2.7% 74.7% 1.0% 7.4% 1.8% 2.4%

Balance: NYC 37.0% 7.3% 38.7% 1.1% 9.6% 1.4% 4.8%

Inner Counties 71.6% 8.6% 9.4% 0.3% 4.2% 1.7% 4.2%

Outer Counties79.6% 8.6% 2.6% 0.3% 2.8% 1.1% 5.0%

New York CSA54.3% 7.1% 26.9% 0.6% 5.4% 1.5% 4.2%

Exhibit: US 76.4% 9.4% 5.2% 0.6% 2.8% 1.3% 4.4%

Take a look at transit and even working from home. How do the majority of LCF people get the spirit you are describing? Working from home is car free and represents 5 times more people than cycle in New York. Transit is closer to ten times more common than cycling and both are more common than walking.

Now you tell me what is the spirit of LCF you want people to embrace? And how does that effect Obesity?

A solar thermal panel is a different type of solar panel, that works by heating up small tubes of water by getting warmed in the sun’s rays. Those tubes of water can then be funneled into a swimming pool, into radiators, or anywhere else that they’re needed. Here, they will then provide heat energy and save you money on a daily basis.

But they don’t really need to be perfectly aligned with the sun in order to do their best work.

Solar photovoltaic panels on the other hand work using light from the sun in order to generate electricity. In brief, these panels have a special arrangement of electrons that become ‘excited’ when they bask in the sunlight. This then causes them to start moving and eventually to form a current. That current will be converted into a useable electrical current by a transformer and will then be delivered to your appliances in your home.

This all means that it’s really important that your panels be pointed directly at the sun. When you do this, it will ensure that the light is directly affecting the electrons and this in turn is what will cause them to become excited and to move in the way you want them to.

All I am doing is taking your points as you present them. If it is natural or easier to do if you have already become a car free person then why aren't people following their "natural" inclinations. If people drive because it is easier shouldn't they do other things that are easier? It is your train of thought. Transportation cycling can lower obesity rates? But then you add all of the things that both non car free and car free people can do as modifiers to that basic premise.

The more abstract and convoluted the logic, the harder it is to explain behavior in context. I have posted numerous times in this thread explaining context and you keep ignoring that context to put forth these abstract logics that have no bearing on lived reality. Are you asking how it is 'natural' or easier to LCF vs. how it is 'natural' or easier to drive? There are complex reasons why people end up doing either or both (car light), but there are numerous contextual reasons why the flow of life in the different paradigms is different. And yet a person who drives can drive less, while a person who lives car free can use car-sharing, ride-sharing, home delivery, etc.

Why do you avoid the explanations I've posted about how living car free integrates physical activity into daily transportation and how this converts nervous energy that might otherwise go into snacking and comfort-eating into time spent on a bike or walking, even when the exercise isn't strenuous? It's like you find the most relevant things that I post and then argue around those so as to ignore and obfuscate them. Are you afraid to face the simple benefits of LCF that make it good because it threatens your overall objective to slam LCF by whatever means you can (in an LCF forum, no less) ?

Quote:

Lets go from general to specific. Not all or even most car free people seem to ride bikes. SO if you are saying that people have to embrace the spirit of LCF don't you have to include how the majority of LCF people commute and get around? You assume the Spirit of LCF is what you say it is but is it really?

I don't feel like playing your category games. Do all military personnel fight in combat? If the majority of military personnel don't fight in combat, do you then ignore combat as a central aspect of military culture? Why are category games like that relevant in your mind?

Quote:

Take a look at transit and even working from home. How do the majority of LCF people get the spirit you are describing? Working from home is car free and represents 5 times more people than cycle in New York. Transit is closer to ten times more common than cycling and both are more common than walking.

I don't know how all those people live and spend their time. What I am talking about is the spirit of LCF, where you go out and go places and shop and run errands and do things, but you do it spending time not sedentary in a car or transit but biking or walking. Those people taking transit or telecommuting might be helping the environment by avoiding driving, but they are not going to get the health benefits if they're not out spending time walking and/or biking. You understand that implicitly but still choose to play category games to cause unnecessary debate and communication problems.

Quote:

Now you tell me what is the spirit of LCF you want people to embrace? And how does that effect Obesity?

I already have many times in this thread, but you ignore it and go on debating anyway. You said that light exercise does nothing for health and weight-management, but I disagree. I think biking around at 12mph and/or walking to commute and run errands has various healthy benefits beyond a sedentary lifestyle. I think it takes extra sedentary time spent in a car and makes that time available to be pedaling and/or walking. Even if those light body movements are not strenuous and intense cardio, they are giving the person a basic level of fitness and toning, keeping their metabolism at a higher level than with sedentary living, and channeling their nervous energy into something besides fidgeting and snacking/comfort-eating.

What IS win-win is walking to the bus stop, making use of public transportation, and getting food delivered.

I am SO glad we've gotten into the whole food delivery service thing. It's excellent. I don't know why we haven't done that before! Such a relief to have that taken care of.

What m155 does, which is frustrating, is he takes the potential of any convenience/service to be abused and he focuses on that as undermining the potential health benefits of LCF. He points out that there are people who just use transit and don't walk and bike around a lot all day, and so they are not going to be any healthier than someone who just drives around in a car. Then he focuses on the best-case-scenario of driving where someone spends their whole day sedentary but then goes to a gym for a strenuous workout and/or goes on a 20mph bike ride for 20 miles because they are not too fatigued after spending the whole day driving and working and running errands in the car.

Now you bring up the opposite aspect of public transit and food delivery, which is that it makes it more convenient for someone who can't imagine LCF as practical because their mind is still caught in the automotive-consumerism paradigm, to choose LCF. You are right because there are situations where transit and/or food delivery is more convenient than biking/walking (or in combination with them), but that doesn't prevent people from being lazy and avoiding going out to bike/walk because they can rely on transit and food delivery. So M155 is right about the people he is focusing on, you are right about what you are saying, and I am right about people who embrace the active-lifestyle spirit of LCF and increase their time spent walking and biking by incorporating it into their daily commuting and errands.

Point being that people will choose what works best for them in their particular life situations.

This is a given, but when people say it in an LCF forum, it seems like a defense of driving over LCF. I really don't understand why this idea of competition between LCF and driving is constantly coming up here. The fact is that if you LCF or aspire to do so, you already see the benefits, and if you don't, you don't and you are likely biased against it because you have assented to the automotive-consumerist paradigm that has been culturally normalized.

So why is there always vying for validity for automotive lifestyles on an LCF forum? Is it that defenders of car culture are drawn here because they see an opportunity to attack people are are interested in transcending driving-dependency?

Look TP. I will make one last effort to make my objection to your assertion that the “Spirit” of LCF will get people walking and riding more. You might have a point if you had added if people had “your” definition of LCF they would embrace what you have been posting.

When I first started posting here my idea of car free was someone that never used a car for anything. I was corrected over several threads to learn a consensus was more or less agreed upon the car free was not owing a car or having one in the household that a person had ready access of.

i was also instructed that you didn’t have to ride a bicycle to be car free. The car free life included walking, working from home and mass transit including large and small buses, trains, Uber and Taxi.

It didn’t matter what I thought the spirit of car free was it only mattered that people that used Those listed forms of commuting and getting around as car free.

Therrfore people working from home or taking a bus every day are car free and have embraced the “spirit” of being car free. Therefore I contend that transit riders, Uber riders, commuter train riders and people working from home are no more or no less likely to exercise and watch their diet than someone that is not car free. They also make up the majority of car free people. I have seen no evidence in your reasoning to suggest otherwise.

All I am doing is taking your points as you present them. If it is natural or easier to do if you have already become a car free person then why aren't people following their "natural" inclinations. If people drive because it is easier shouldn't they do other things that are easier? It is your train of thought. Transportation cycling can lower obesity rates? But then you add all of the things that both non car free and car free people can do as modifiers to that basic premise.

Lets go from general to specific. Not all or even most car free people seem to ride bikes. SO if you are saying that people have to embrace the spirit of LCF don't you have to include how the majority of LCF people commute and get around? You assume the Spirit of LCF is what you say it is but is it really?

New York CSA Means of Transportation: Work Location: 2013

AreaDrive Alone Car Pool Transit Bicycle Walk Other Work at Home

Manhattan 10.0% 2.7% 74.7% 1.0% 7.4% 1.8% 2.4%

Balance: NYC 37.0% 7.3% 38.7% 1.1% 9.6% 1.4% 4.8%

Inner Counties 71.6% 8.6% 9.4% 0.3% 4.2% 1.7% 4.2%

Outer Counties79.6% 8.6% 2.6% 0.3% 2.8% 1.1% 5.0%

New York CSA54.3% 7.1% 26.9% 0.6% 5.4% 1.5% 4.2%

Exhibit: US 76.4% 9.4% 5.2% 0.6% 2.8% 1.3% 4.4%

Take a look at transit and even working from home. How do the majority of LCF people get the spirit you are describing? Working from home is car free and represents 5 times more people than cycle in New York. Transit is closer to ten times more common than cycling and both are more common than walking.

Now you tell me what is the spirit of LCF you want people to embrace? And how does that effect Obesity?